Following the advice of Rothstein (2008), we apply two of the conventional methods that
address publication bias.
Not exact matches
One of the many emerging initiatives trying to
address bias in both research and
publication is the option to get a research idea and protocol accepted by a journal before actually conducting the experiments, with the promise that the journal will later publish the results regardless of the outcome.
Other
publications have
addressed race and sex
bias in educational practice and research.
To
address the possible
publication bias (ie, the fact that studies with nonsignificant results are less likely to be published), we computed the fail - safe N (Nfs) according to the method Orwin16 proposed, which is more conservative than the traditional Rosenthal Nfs.17, 18 Orwin's Nfs determines the number of additional studies in a meta - analysis yielding null effect sizes that would be needed to yield a «trivial» OR of 1.05.
Several methods exist to
address potential effects of
publication bias, but each has its own shortcoming (Rothstein 2008).